Adaptable text analytics platform

ABSTRACT

A text analytics platform includes instructions embodied in one or more non-transitory machine accessible storage media configured to cause a computing device to retrieve text from at least one text source and implement one or more algorithms to determine a quantitative linguistics assessment for the retrieved text and provide as output a numeric value corresponding to the quantitative linguistics assessment. The quantitative linguistics assessment is based at least in part on a trained model.

CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATION

This application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No.15/273,484, filed Sep. 22, 2016; U.S. Pat. No. 10,261,993, issue dateApr. 16, 2019, which claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional PatentApplication Ser. No. 62/222,429, titled AUTOMATED TEXT SCORING ENGINEand filed on Sep. 23, 2015, the content of which is hereby fullyincorporated by reference herein.

BACKGROUND

Teachers of virtually all grades from elementary schools to colleges andeven graduate or professional schools typically need to measure studentprogress throughout the school year, measure development of college andcareer readiness skills, e.g., using Common Core standards, and forecastfuture student achievement on high-stakes assessments. However, many—ifnot most—teachers are usually overwhelmed. Too often, they have too muchgrading to do, e.g., term papers or other writing assignments, in toolittle time. Because of this, teachers tend to find it incrediblydifficult to provide feedback that is immediate, comprehensive, anddetailed.

While some commercial assessment tools presently exist, such as the ETSe-rater and Pearson Intelligent Essay Assessor, such assessment toolsare prohibitively expensive, provide only a holistic score rather thanany trait-based scoring, are not proven to predict summative scores, andlack connection to the classroom curriculum because they are typicallytied to only published provided content and curriculums Indeed, theseassessment tools rely on publisher prompts and curriculum because suchassessment tools require at least 200 hand-scored training essays(typically 5,000 minimum essays for meaningful results), significantlymore than any teacher could or should need to do in order to train theassessment tool.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 is a block diagram illustrating an example of a text analyticsplatform in accordance with certain implementations of the disclosedtechnology.

FIG. 2 is a block diagram illustrating another example of a textanalytics platform in accordance with certain implementations of thedisclosed technology.

FIG. 3A is a block diagram that illustrates a training phase of a textanalytics platform in accordance with certain implementations of thedisclosed technology.

FIG. 3B is a block diagram that illustrates a scoring phase of a textanalytics platform in accordance with certain implementations of thedisclosed technology.

FIG. 4A is a block diagram that illustrates a development/customizationphase of a text analytics platform in accordance with certainimplementations of the disclosed technology.

FIG. 4B is a block diagram that illustrates a deployment phase of a textanalytics platform in accordance with certain implementations of thedisclosed technology.

FIG. 5 is a block diagram illustrating an example of a networked systemin which embodiments of the disclosed technology may be implemented.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

Certain implementations of the disclosed technology are generallydirected to systems and/or electronic devices that may be configured toautomatically assign numeric scores to text documents, e.g., in a mannerthat attempts to replicate as accurately as possible the manual scoringof such texts by human judges. This may be particularly advantageous ina number of areas, such as the identification of bullying in online chatcommunities or the grading of student essays for a given writingassessment, for example. Such implementations may also advantageouslyreduce the high labor costs that are typically associated with obtainingmanual human judgments. Such implementations may further be able toadvantageously provide reliable scoring of large quantities of responsesin domains where such reliable scoring is needed, such as nationalwriting assessments or the monitoring of large online chat rooms, forexample.

As used herein, the term text generally refers to any of a number ofvarious types of texts ranging from short bursts of text, such as textmessages or natural language interactions on social media platforms suchas Twitter feeds and Facebook postings, for example, to longer textdocuments such as essays, dissertations, or news articles. Also usedherein, the term score (also referred to herein as numeric score)generally refers to a quantitative linguistic assessment of a particulartext.

Certain implementations of the disclosed technology may include aplatform based primarily around an automated text scoring engine (ATSE).The platform generally includes a trainable, domain-independent systemthat may be configured to assign and further learn to assign numericscores to various types of text documents. The ATSE may be configured touse advanced text analysis algorithms to identify features of interestin text documents, such as certain word or phrase meanings and discourserelationships, for example. The subsequent use of a machine-learningarchitecture and training set of hand-scored example texts may enablethe ATSE to learn by example in order to assign scores based upon theidentified features, for example.

Certain implementations may include a flexible “text regression”pipeline that has two main aspects: text analysis algorithms that may beconfigured to extract a large variety of features that describe acertain text, e.g., as a vector of numbers; and an ensemble-basedregression learner that may be configured to predict a score from thefeatures. The text analysis algorithms may advantageously not need todepend on pre-trained models. Rather than using English part-of-speechtaggers, parsers, etc., that have been trained on canonical Englishdocuments such as the Wall Street Journal, certain embodiments may useunsupervised learning methods to induce part-of-speech(-like)categories, term clusters, multi-word phrases, etc., directly from thedata.

The ATSE may include a software-based system configured to learn how toautomatically assign a score, e.g., a numeric value, to a text, e.g., ashort text burst or a longer essay, given a training set of exemplaryhuman-scored texts. The numeric value may be within a given range suchas zero to one, for example. Such a system may advantageously assignscores to unscored texts in a manner that most accurately replicates thetraining examples. Such scores may advantageously be multi-trait andCommon Core-aligned rather than a traditional single holistic score.

FIG. 1 is a block diagram illustrating an example of a text analyticsplatform 100 in accordance with certain implementations of the disclosedtechnology. In the text analytics platform 100, an automated textscoring engine (ATSE) 110 has three inputs: a list of texts 102, a listof scores 104 assigned to some (but not necessarily all) of the texts104, and metadata 106 about the scores, such as the maximum possiblescore and minimum possible score, for example. The ATSE 110 may use textanalysis algorithms 112 to generate and provide as output a list ofscores for unscored texts 120 in the input. Any or all of the inputs102-106 and output 120 may be in the form of spreadsheet files, e.g.,Microsoft Excel files, or as tab-separated text files or other suitableformat(s).

The ATSE 110 may be configured to be trained using anywhere fromapproximately 100 to 10,000 examples. The text analytics platform 100may be configured to operate in a single pass over all texts. That is,the text analytics platform 100 may be configured to train itself andassign scores to unscored data in a single execution. This may be doneevery time essays are to be automatically scored, for example. Softwarefor any or all of the various components of the text analytics platform100 may be provided as source code in any of a number of suitableprogramming languages such as Java and R, for example, e.g., using Javaand R software development tools.

Certain implementations may include the following steps in executing theATSE 110: generating features, generating score predictions, andpost-processing/validation, each of which may occur responsive to theexecuting of a single command on the command line, for example. In orderto generate features, a Java program configured to generate a set offeature files that characterize the input data may be run. To generatescore predictions, an R program configured to learn to score texts basedupon the generated features may be run. To perform post-processing andvalidation, a Java program configured to accumulate the output of theprevious step and produce a file containing the final automatic scoresmay be run.

The contents of the results file may be formatted in the same manner asthe input file. It may have the same number of rows, for example, withthe documents ordered in the same manner. In certain embodiments, one ormore documents that are scored in the input file may be marked, e.g., asNA, in the result file, and one or more scores so marked in the inputfile may be scored in the results file.

The text analytics platform 100 generally does not depend or need todepend upon pre-trained models of language use, unlike traditionalnatural language processing approaches that rely upon large collectionsof annotated data that are used to train models for things such asparsing and part of speech tagging. The text analytics platform 100 mayadvantageously study the corpus of texts to be analyzed andautomatically infer syntactic and semantic patterns directly from them,thus enabling the text analytics platform 100 to be applied acrossvirtually any domain and text type, generally with little or no risk ofmisalignment between background models and the texts to be scored.

The text analytics platform 100 also generally aligns with Common Corewriting standards. For example, one or more of the text analyticalgorithms may be designed to predict the quality traits associated withCommon Core writing sub-standards, such as the following Common Corealigned traits: introduction (e.g., includes a clearly stated claim,provides a clear preview of the content, and engages the reader),conclusion (e.g., includes a clearly restated claim, provides a clearreview of the content, and engages the reader in considering thewriter's opinion), coherence and sequencing, relevance and significance(e.g., all evidence clearly supports the prompt, is based on thepassage, and is sufficient in elaboration or details), sequencing andcoherence (e.g., ideas are grouped by topic and the ideas flow logicallywith clear relationships, making it easy to follow; and summative workis cohesive), written conventions (e.g., consistently demonstrates anexemplary command of written conventions; may have minor errors that donot interfere with meaning), and language and word choice (e.g.,language is clear and the word choice is sophisticated). Exemplarysub-standards include: providing a concluding statement that supportsthe argument presented, using precise language and domain-specificvocabulary to explain the topic, and using words, phrases, and clausesto create cohesion and clarify the relationships among claim(s),counterclaims, reasons, and evidence.

For improved performance and results, the ATSE 110 may be trained in aprompt-specific way. To score responses to a given specific prompt, theATSE 110 may be trained using a collection of hand-scored responses tothe same prompt, but it is not necessarily bound by this restriction. Incertain embodiments, the ATSE 110 may be trained using a collection ofresponses from multiple prompts and then be used to accurately scoreresponses to a previously unseen prompt. The platform 100 may bere-trainable based on new prompts and reusable for future projects orevaluations.

The nature of the scoring of the texts 102 is generally dependent atleast in part on the data used to train the ATSE 110. That is, certainfeatures of the data may be deemed representative of a certain qualityor characteristic of the text. As such, the scoring may be at leastindirectly driven by the characteristics and/or preferences of thepeople performing the hand-scoring that yields the training data, e.g.,essays.

FIG. 2 is a block diagram illustrating another example of a textanalytics platform 200 in accordance with certain implementations of thedisclosed technology. In the example, an ATSE, such as the ATSE 110illustrated by FIG. 1, generally includes two main software components:an ATSE text feature extraction module 204, an ATSE data transformationmodule 206, and an ATSE machine-learning (ML) workflow module 208, anyor all of which may be implemented in Java or other suitable programminglanguage. The ATSE text feature extraction module 204 may use advancednatural language processing (NLP) and text analytics algorithms toidentify and measure features of texts, such as discourse relationshipsand phrase meanings, for example.

An output of the ATSE text feature extraction module 204 may include anumeric representation of each text. The ML workflow module 206 may beemployed to optimize and apply a machine learned statistical scoringmodel. Given the manually scored examples, the ML workflow module 206may learn how to optimally assign scores based upon the featuresidentified by the text feature extraction module 204. The ML workflowmodule 206 may leverage an ensemble of state-of-the-art machine learningalgorithms, such as gradient boosted trees and random forests, forexample.

FIGS. 3A and 3B are block diagrams that respectively illustrate atraining phase 310 and a scoring phase 350 of a text analytics platformin accordance with certain implementations of the disclosed technology.In certain embodiments, the training phase 310 and scoring phase 350 areconducted at different times. In alternate embodiments, the two phases310 and 350 may be performed at least partially concurrently.

The text analytics platform includes an ATSE 302, such as the ATSE 110illustrated by FIG. 1, that is generally configured to assign numericscores to texts in a manner that accurately reproduces a set ofhand-scored training examples. In the training phase 310, multipletraining examples 320 may include a collection of exemplary hand-scoredtexts, including the texts themselves 322 and corresponding scores 324,that are provided to the ATSE 302 as input. The ATSE may use a featureextraction module 332 to extract numerical features 334 from the texts322 and then learn from the training examples 320, e.g., using a machinelearning module 336, advantageously identifying an optimal way to usethe features of each text to predict that text's score.

As used herein, the term feature generally refers to trait-specific textproperties. In certain embodiments, the feature extraction module 332may process all received essay texts to extract features, typicallythousands of features, to provide as output feature vectors, e.g., longlists of numeric values for each essay. The machine learning module 336may process the numeric features by using one or more of severaldistinct learning algorithms and data transformations to provide asoutput a scoring model 338 that may take feature vectors as input andproduce a score. Such algorithms may include any or all of thefollowing: natural language processing (NLP), e.g., using linguisticprocessing to extract meanings and relationships and using linearregression to predict score (e.g., word embeddings, summarization,analogy); latent semantic analysis (LSA), e.g., mathematicallytransforming counts of words to identify meanings and topical relevance;and statistical machine learning (SML), e.g., processing the text withwhatever means possible and feeding it into general-purpose machinelearning classification algorithms.

The scoring model 338 generally contains information, e.g., statisticalmodeling parameters, that can then be used by ATSE 302 in the scoringphase 350 to score previously unscored texts 352, e.g., using thefeature extraction module 332 to extract numerical features 335 from theunscored texts 352, thus resulting in a list of scores 354 correspondingto the previously unscored texts 352. The scoring model 338 may betrained for each prompt-trait pair. For example, the query “Should weget rid of pennies” may be correlated with the sequencing trait. Thescoring model 338 may not be language-specific; that is, it may be usedfor multiple different languages. Alternatively, a separate scoringmodel 338 may be established for each of a number of differentlanguages.

The ATSE 302 may be designed to be domain-independent and used toaccurately score a wide variety of traits in a wide variety of texttypes and topics. As a machine learning-based system, given a new set oftraining examples, it can advantageously adapt itself to new scoringtasks without any human intervention. Certain implementations mayinclude an error-checking mechanism configured to capture and reporttraining errors and/or problems pertaining to an unsuccessfulpre-validation of input data.

FIGS. 4A and 4B are block diagrams that respectively illustrate adevelopment/customization phase 410 and a deployment/production phase450 of a text analytics platform that includes an ATSE 402 in accordancewith certain implementations of the disclosed technology. In thedevelopment/customization phase 410, development data 420 includessupporting resources 422, a hand-scored training set 424 (e.g., acertain number of essays or other texts that have been manually scored),and a hand-scored validation set 426. A configuration 412 (e.g., aninitial or default configuration) may be customized 414 before beingapplied by the ATSE 402. The ATSE 402 is configured to receive theconfiguration 414, supporting resources 422, and hand-scored trainingset 424 and, based on these inputs, generate a customized scoring model416.

The scoring model 416 may be subsequently validated 418 against thehand-scored validation set 426. The evaluation results 432 may be sentto a diagnostics testing for undesirable system behavior, for example.In certain embodiments, an enhancement 436 may be made based on thediagnostics, e.g., to address any diagnosed problems, and then appliedto the configuration 412. This process may repeat any number of times tofully customize the ATSE 402 for a particular data set. Once thecustomization is complete and the ATSE 402 has been fully validated forthe new task, a final training round takes place and a final customizedscoring model 416, such as the scoring model 202 illustrated by FIG. 2,may then be deployed into production, e.g., the deployment phase 450.The custom configuration 414 may be used to subsequently instruct thefeature extraction and ML workflow modules of the ATSE 402 to operate ina manner tailored for customer-specific content and scoring rubric, andthe validated scoring model 416 has been automatically optimized toscore the target dataset as accurately as possible.

In the deployment phase 450, the ATSE 402 may receive from productiondata 460 a number of unscored texts 462 such as essays, for example.Based at least in part on the custom configuration 414 and customizedscoring model 416 from the development/customization phase 410, the ATSE402 may apply feature extraction and ML workflow modules to determineand provide as output a list of scores 464, each score corresponding toa particular one of the previously unscored texts 462.

Performance of the ATSE 402 may be determined principally throughmeasurement of the agreement between scores produced automatically bythe ATSE 402 and score produced manually, e.g., human consensus scoreson a held-out test set, using a suitable metric such as the quadraticweighted kappa statistic as a measure of agreement. Inter-raterreliability may be measure using the same statistic, and the performanceof the ATSE 402 may be summarized using the ratio betweensystem-to-consensus agreement and inter-rater agreement. This mayprovide a simple way of characterizing the performance of the ATSE 402in terms that are comparable to how human scorers are typicallyevaluated.

In certain implementations, a front end of the ATSE 402 may be builtsuch that certain users, e.g., school personnel or other authorizedusers, may use the ATSE 402. Alternatively or in addition thereto, aweb-based interface may be established such that certain users may usethe ATSE 402 through a web browser.

FIG. 5 is a block diagram illustrating an example of a networked system500 in which embodiments of the disclosed technology may be implemented.In the example, the system 500 includes a network 502 such as theInternet, an intranet, a home network, or any combination thereof.Traditional computing devices such as a desktop computer 504 and laptopcomputer 506 may connect to the network 502 to communicate with eachother or with other devices connected to the network.

The networked system 500 also includes three mobile electronic devices508-512. Two of the mobile electronic devices, 508 and 510, are mobilecommunications devices such as cellular telephones or smart phones. Thethird mobile electronic device, 512, is a handheld device such as apersonal data assistant (PDA) or tablet device. Any or all of thedevices 504-512 may interact directly or indirectly with each other. Aserver 513 may manage and/or otherwise interact with any or all of thedevices 504-512 over the network 502.

The networked system 500 also includes a storage device 514, which maybe a central database or repository, a local data store, or a remotestorage device, for example. The storage device 514 may be accessible toany or all of the other devices 504-512, subject to limitations orrestrictions by the devices 504-512, a third party, or the storagedevice 514 itself. The server 513 may manage and/or otherwise interactdirectly with the storage device 514. The storage device 514 may be usedto store some or all of the data and information that is accessed and/orused by any of the computers 504 and 506 or mobile electronic devices508-512.

Having described and illustrated the principles of the invention withreference to illustrated embodiments, it will be recognized that theillustrated embodiments may be modified in arrangement and detailwithout departing from such principles, and may be combined in anydesired manner. And although the foregoing discussion has focused onparticular embodiments, other configurations are contemplated. Inparticular, even though expressions such as “according to an embodimentof the invention” or the like are used herein, these phrases are meantto generally reference embodiment possibilities, and are not intended tolimit the invention to particular embodiment configurations. As usedherein, these terms may reference the same or different embodiments thatare combinable into other embodiments.

Consequently, in view of the wide variety of permutations to theembodiments described herein, this detailed description and accompanyingmaterial is intended to be illustrative only, and should not be taken aslimiting the scope of the invention. What is claimed as the invention,therefore, is all such modifications as may come within the scope andspirit of the following claims and equivalents thereto.

What is claimed is:
 1. A method for creating a machine-learned modelthat can be used to adapt a domain-independent automated text analyticsprocess to a particular text scoring task, the method comprising:inputting, to a feature extraction process, texts and correspondingscores; using the feature extraction process, extracting features fromthe texts; inputting, into a machine learning process, the features andthe scores; using the machine learning process, creating adomain-independent scoring model; wherein the domain-independent scoringmodel and a customized configuration are used to score unscored textwith respect to a particular text scoring task; wherein the customizedconfiguration comprises operating instructions that tailor thedomain-independent scoring model to a subset of the features and ascoring rubric; wherein the subset of the features and the scoringrubric are associated with the particular text scoring task; wherein themethod is performed by one or more computing devices.
 2. The method ofclaim 1, wherein the texts used to train the domain-independent scoringmodel include one or more of: a document, an essay, a message, anotification, a comment, a like, a follow request, an emoji, a link, atweet, a meme, an image, a video.
 3. The method of claim 1, wherein atleast part of the method for training the domain-independent scoringmodel is performed concurrently with a use of the domain-independentscoring model and the customized configuration to score unscored text.4. The method of claim 1, wherein the feature extraction processincludes identifying one or more features of interest in the textsincluding one or more of: a word meaning, a phrase meaning, a discourserelationship, a numerical feature, a particular characteristic of thetexts, a particular quality of the texts, a word count, a topicalrelevance.
 5. The method of claim 1, comprising using an unsupervisedmachine learning process to automatically infer, directly from a text tobe scored, one or more of: a part-of-speech category, a term cluster, amulti-word phrase, a syntactic pattern, a semantic pattern.
 6. Themethod of claim 1, wherein the scores corresponding to the texts arecustomizable according to one or more of: a characteristic of thescoring rubric or a preference of a person associated with the scoringrubric.
 7. The method of claim 1, wherein the machine learning processtrains the domain-independent scoring model to associate scores withfeatures using one or more of: a tree-based algorithm, a gradientboosting algorithm, a random forest algorithm.
 8. The method of claim 1,wherein the domain-independent scoring model uses, to predict a scorefor the unscored text, one or more of: a linear regression algorithm, aclassification algorithm.
 9. The method of claim 1, wherein thedomain-independent scoring model is language-specific orlanguage-independent.
 10. One or more non-transitory computer-readablestorage media comprising instructions which, when executed by one ormore processors, cause: inputting, to a feature extraction process,texts and corresponding scores; using the feature extraction process,extracting features from the texts; inputting, into a machine learningprocess, the features and the scores; using the machine learningprocess, creating a domain-independent scoring model; wherein thedomain-independent scoring model and a customized configuration are usedto score unscored text with respect to a particular text scoring task;wherein the customized configuration comprises operating instructionsthat tailor the domain-independent scoring model to a subset of thefeatures and a scoring rubric; wherein the subset of the features andthe scoring rubric are associated with the particular text scoring task.11. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media ofclaim 10, wherein the texts used to create the domain-independentscoring model include one or more of: a document, an essay, a message, anotification, a comment, a like, a follow request, an emoji, a link, atweet, a meme, an image, a video.
 12. The one or more non-transitorycomputer-readable storage media of claim 10, wherein at least part ofcreating the domain-independent scoring model is performed concurrentlywith a use of the domain-independent scoring model and the customizedconfiguration to score unscored text.
 13. The one or more non-transitorycomputer-readable storage media of claim 10, wherein the instructions,when executed by one or more processors, are capable of causing thefeature extraction process to indentify one or more features of interestin the texts including one or more of: a word meaning, a phrase meaning,a discourse relationship, a numerical feature, a particularcharacteristic of the texts, a particular quality of the texts, a wordcount, a topical relevance.
 14. The one or more non-transitorycomputer-readable storage media of claim 10, wherein the instructions,when executed by one or more processors, are capable of causing anunsupervised machine learning process to automatically infer, directlyfrom a text to be scored, one or more of: a part-of-speech category, aterm cluster, a multi-word phrase, a syntactic pattern, a semanticpattern.
 15. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable storagemedia of claim 10, wherein the scores corresponding to the texts arecustomizable according to one or more of: a characteristic of thescoring rubric or a preference of a person associated with the scoringrubric.
 16. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable storagemedia of claim 10, wherein the instructions, when executed by one ormore processors, are capable of causing the machine learning process totrain the domain-independent scoring model to associate scores withfeatures using one or more of: a tree-based algorithm, a gradientboosting algorithm, a random forest algorithm.
 17. The one or morenon-transitory computer-readable storage media of claim 10, wherein thedomain-independent scoring model uses, to predict a score for theunscored text, one or more of: a linear regression algorithm, aclassification algorithm.
 18. The one or more non-transitorycomputer-readable storage media of claim 10, wherein thedomain-independent scoring model is language-specific orlanguage-independent.
 19. A system comprising: one or more processors;one or more storage media storing instructions which, when executed bythe one or more processors, cause: inputting, to a feature extractionprocess, texts and corresponding scores; using the feature extractionprocess, extracting features from the texts; inputting, into a machinelearning process, the features and the scores; using the machinelearning process, creating a domain-independent scoring model; whereinthe domain-independent scoring model and a customized configuration areused to score unscored text with respect to a particular text scoringtask; wherein the customized configuration comprises operatinginstructions that tailor the domain-independent scoring model to asubset of the features and a scoring rubric; wherein the subset of thefeatures and the scoring rubric are associated with the particular textscoring task.
 20. The system of claim 19, wherein the texts used tocreate the domain-independent scoring model include one or more of: adocument, an essay, a message, a notification, a comment, a like, afollow request, an emoji, a link, a tweet, a meme, an image, a video.21. The system of claim 19, wherein at least part of the creating thedomain-independent scoring model is performed concurrently with a use ofthe domain-independent scoring model and the customized configuration toscore unscored text.
 22. The system of claim 19, wherein theinstructions, when executed by one or more processors, are capable ofcausing the feature extraction process to indentify one or more featuresof interest in the texts including one or more of: a word meaning, aphrase meaning, a discourse relationship, a numerical feature, aparticular characteristic of the texts, a particular quality of thetexts, a word count, a topical relevance.
 23. The system of claim 19,wherein the instructions, when executed by one or more processors, arecapable of causing, using an unsupervised machine learning process toautomatically infer, directly from a text to be scored, one or more of:a part-of-speech category, a term cluster, a multi-word phrase, asyntactic pattern, a semantic pattern.
 24. The system of claim 19,wherein the scores corresponding to the texts are customizable accordingto one or more of: a characteristic of the scoring rubric or apreference of a person associated with the scoring rubric.
 25. Thesystem of claim 19, wherein the instructions, when executed by one ormore processors, are capable of causing the machine learning process totrain the domain-independent scoring model to associate scores withfeatures using one or more of: a tree-based algorithm, a gradientboosting algorithm, a random forest algorithm.
 26. The system of claim19, wherein the domain-independent scoring model uses, to predict ascore for the unscored text, one or more of: a linear regressionalgorithm, a classification algorithm.
 27. The system of claim 19,wherein the domain-independent scoring model is language-specific orlanguage-independent.